[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6f433d59-4a56-b698-e119-682bb8bf6713@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 06:01:48 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: PF_WQ_WORKER threads must sleep at
should_reclaim_retry().
On 2018/07/31 4:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Since should_reclaim_retry() should be a natural reschedule point,
> let's do the short sleep for PF_WQ_WORKER threads unconditionally in
> order to guarantee that other pending work items are started. This will
> workaround this problem and it is less fragile than hunting down when
> the sleep is missed. E.g. we used to have a sleeping point in the oom
> path but this has been removed recently because it caused other issues.
> Having a single sleeping point is more robust.
linux.git has not removed the sleeping point in the OOM path yet. Since removing the
sleeping point in the OOM path can mitigate CVE-2016-10723, please do so immediately.
(And that change will conflict with Roman's cgroup aware OOM killer patchset. But it
should be easy to rebase.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists